Re: b4 tag parsing too lax?

[Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:00:27PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:44:43PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I just saw this in commit ef6e1997da63 ("wifi: mac80211: fortify the
> > spinlock against deadlock by interrupt"):
> > 
> >   Reviewed-by: tag, or it goes automatically?
> > 
> > I tracked it down to:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/074cf5ed-c39d-1c16-12e7-4b14bbe0cac4@alu.unizg.hr/
> > 
> > I can't tell if we should just deal with kind of unfortunate misparsing,
> > or if b4 should require at least a "@" in the tag? (Though plenty of
> > tags are just someone's name without an email in the cases where no
> > email was available...)
> 
> I don't think b4 did this, because we already have precautions against this in
> place. E.g. if you retrieve that with b4, you will see that it doesn't get
> confused by that line:
> 
> $ b4 am -o/tmp https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/074cf5ed-c39d-1c16-12e7-4b14bbe0cac4@alu.unizg.hr/
> Analyzing 5 messages in the thread
> ...
> ---
>   ✗ [PATCH v4 1/1] wifi: mac80211: fortify the spinlock against deadlock by interrupt
>     + Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com> (✓ DKIM/kernel.org)
>   ---
>   ...
> ---
> ...
> 
> While it's possible that b4 did this, it's not any current version.

Okay, weird! I have no idea how that got there then.

I should have CCed Johannes Berg to start with, but now I have. :) I'm
curious what the workflow for that patch was -- do you use b4? (Perhaps
this was a b4 behavior accidentally back in May?)

Anyway, no worries. I only found 1 instance like this in the last year.

-- 
Kees Cook